Ralph Nader Could Have Been Ron Paul's Ying
 Monday, February 25th, 2008

  

We reported back in January that Ralph Nader was considering a fifth bid for the White House, and--surprise, surprise--he announced yesterday that he has decided to run again.  He appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert at the NBC studios in Washington, and announced he is indeed running again this year.  According to the AP, Nader said that the Democratic candidates running now are too close to big business and that the electorate will not vote for a "pro-war John McCain."

This move is sure to anger both Democrats and Republicans alike, as Nader is infamous for snatching up votes from stray voters.

Nader said Washington, D.C. is "corporate-occupied territory," which is not exactly untrue.  However.  Nader doesn't have a chance in Hades of winning this election - half of the primaries are already over - and he knows that.  So what is his motivation?

Both times that George W. Bush took the White House, Ralph Nader was in there taking possible votes away: from Al Gore, from John Kerry.  He's running as an Independent/Green Party member, and yet his actions in the last two elections have arguably benefited Republicans.

If the beliefs he lays claim to are his true beliefs--why is he not just endorsing Ron Paul, and opening up his chance to be Paul's VP running mate??

Ron Paul is the only candidate left in the race who has not wavered in his opposition to this war.  Yet somehow, Ralph freaking Nader can get a full segment on NBC's Meet The Press, but Ron Paul can't get more than 6 minutes and 31 seconds of talking time in the entire MSNBC Republican debate.

From which, by the way, we had hundreds of people send in this petition, and got not a single reply.

If Nader truly cared about the future of our country, and was concerned with corporate politics, wouldn't he would have at least mentioned the unequal coverage the MSM has given candidates in this election?

He could have been Ron Paul's perfect running mate:  both strongly opposed the Iraq War; both advocate consumer rights; both are proponents of following the Constitution to the letter; both are critics of big banks, and the profits of health insurers in America.  And honestly, I could see Paul's campaign needing a little strength in the environmental aspect - Nader could have been the perfect ying to his yang.

But Ralph Nader is not really that ying.  His ying is an illusion.  His background is being an attorney; and, in my opinion, an election spoiler.

Any Republican who does not want to endorse a pro-war candidate already has Ron Paul.  Any Democrat that does not like Hillary Clinton, nor Barack Obama, for corporate ties or for whatever reason, is free to write in Dennis Kucinich, or whomever they chose.

But Ralph Nader has lost 4 times in U.S. presidential races.  What is next, a "Ralph Nader Law" that prevents people from running this many times?  Is this how Nader wants to go down in history?

Four strikes.  Now on his fifth.

I think the real question is:  why is the MSM shoving Ralph Nader down our throats?  Albert Howard, for example - he's not only running, he just paid $55,600 to initiate the New Hampshire Primary ballot recount.  Have you ever even heard of him on CNN or MSNBC?

To the mainstream media, he doesn't exist.  It's all about campaign funds and millions of dollars spent in advertising, determining who is high-profile and who is not.  But he is a Michigan Republican Presidential Candidate.  Doesn't running count for anything anymore?

Apparently it does for Ralph Nader.

Albert Howard interviewed Ron Paul, by the way.

Comments > >